- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:27:48 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: tiago.murakami@itau.com.br, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote: > > tiago.murakami@itau.com.br wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> There is a problem: Folksonomies are not a Controlled Vocabulary. >> >> >> > My view is that they are controlled, just in a different way. On my > blog I control my keywords / categories, and arrange them in a basic > hierarchy. On flickr, I do the same with my "tags" that I assign to > photos. Actually I don't; the flickr tags are in a flat space, not explicitly hierarchical. But I still control them :) > In both contexts I do this with some thought for how they relate to > the categories used by my friends and colleagues. And in both cases, > there are tools to expose these categories in RDF/SKOS. They're > certainly not controlled in the classic library sense, but they are > organised; sometimes carefully, sometimes carelessly. The weblog case > is more clearly "controlled vocabulary" than Flickr (based only on > current UI). This is because in my blog, when I post an article via > Wordpress, it offers me a list of my existing categories as the > options for categorising a post. On Flickr there is a free-text entry > field instead. But UIs can change easily: the practice in both systems > leads people to use the same category/keyword over again. > > Short version: folksonomies are "locally-controlled vocabularies", > perhaps? > > Dan
Received on Sunday, 9 October 2005 17:27:54 UTC